Mr. KENEIPP. That is right.

Senator THOMAS. And make a contract with them at the lowest possible cost?

Mr. KENEIPP. Yes, sir.

Senator THOMAS. So, the committee would not be called upon to pass upon a particular parking meter?

Mr. KENEIPP. That would be a matter for the General Accounting Office to decide.

We do know, however, that they have been successful in other cities and on the basis of our information we are convinced that they are worth a test at least, within a limited area.

The primary function of parking meters is to ease up the acute parking situation; to make it possible for more motorists to find a place to park and transact business. The revenue derived from the meters is definitely incidental and is applied toward purchase of the machines and various traffic uses.

It has been shown by experience elsewhere that parking meters do help the parking situation. A housewife, for example, can come downtown and be reasonably certain of finding a place to park near a bank or store; and in most instances, she can accomplish her errands at no greater cost for parking than a nickle or a dime. Obviously that is substantially less than it costs the average shopper today where he or she uses his own car or any other means of transportation. We hear the complaint that it is unfair for the city to sell the right to park on the streets. From a strictly legalistic standpoint that may be correct; although in many States where the meters are in operation their legality is unquestioned. Three State Supreme Courts have recently handed down opinions that the meter installation is valid. The States were Oklahoma, Massachusetts, and Florida. The Massachusetts and Florida courts, however, held in effect that municipalities cannot be authorized to turn the use of meters into a business of profit over and above the expense involved in proper regulation. Senator THOMAS. In other words, these meters are installed as a means of regulating the traffic?

Mr. KENEIPP. That is correct.

Senator THOMAS. Not raising revenue?

Mr. KENEIPP. That is it exactly. However, we believe the practical aspect is far more significant. It is, basically, simply a question of making parking space on the streets available to the greatest number and not simply to the person who gets there first and stays longest. The parking meter apparently does make for more parking spaces, and that is what the motorist, the merchant, the director of traffic, and everyone else concerned with the problem wants and wants badly.

It is for these very practical reasons that the advisory board of the Keystone Automobile Club has gone on record in favor of giving the meters a trial here. We only say that no city in the United States has any more critical parking problem than Washington, and that the parking meter may very well provide a means of alleviating it. It is all very well to strike a dogmatic attitude and to insist on one's legal rights to park on the public streets free of charge.

But what does that avail the motorist and merchant when finding a space on the public streets free of charge is a practical impossibility? We believe it would be simply a matter of common sense to give the

parking meter an opportunity to see whether it can help Washington as it has helped other communities throughout the country.

We will be glad, if the committee wishes, to insert in the record certain pertinent material on this subject compiled from our survey. We urge your consideration of an authorization to the Commissioners to experiment with parking meters in the city.

The material I had in mind, Mr. Chairman, was a comprehensive report on this which I supplied Congressman Lewis at his request. He asked certain questions and at some considerable effort we got all of the material together for him and it is boiled down here, and I think that it would be interesting reading for the record.

Senator THOMAS. If you will, I would like to have you put that in the record.

Mr. KENEIPP. I will be glad to do so.

(The matter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. DAVID J. LEWIS,

United States House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.

JUNE 22, 1937.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN LEWIS: As promised in our letter of June 16, we are pleased to hand you the following information concerning parking meters.

1. The number of cities where parking meters are installed, number of meters in operation and how long a period of time they have been in use.

Although our files do not indicate exactly how long the meters have been in use in each of the various cities which have them, according to information compiled by Editorial Research Reports from three of the principal companies in the parking-meter field there were 14,309 meters in use or under contract in 28 cities as of March 15, 1937. These cities and the number of meters installed in each are: Bakersfield, Calif., 200; Clearwater, Fla., 35; Corpus Christi, Tex., 481; Cumberland, Md., 125; Dallas, Tex., 1,500; El Paso, Tex., 502; Fort Worth, Tex., 950; Houston, Tex., 2,075; Huntington, W. Va., 550; Kansas City, Mo., 1,395; Knoxville, Tenn., 200; Long Beach, Calif., 400; Macon, Ga., 184; Meadville, Pa., 117; Miami, Fla., 810; Norfolk, Va., 250; Oklahoma City, Okla., 522; Passaic, N. J., 150; Ponca City, Okla., 32; Providence, R. I., 250; St. Petersburg, Fla., 150; San Antonio, Tex., 1,500; Sharon, Pa., 100; Toledo, Ohio, 1,000; Tyler, Tex., 363; Waco, Tex., 539; Wichita Falls, Tex., 429; and Wilkes-Barre, Pa., 200.

2. The number of cities where parking meters have been tried out and later removed and the reasons therefor.

Because try-outs of first installations have not always measured up to advance estimates of parking-meter yields, some cities have not installed the full number for which they originally contracted. Kansas City is a case in point. The original Kansas City contract called for 3,000 meters, to be installed in lots of 1,000 each Only 1,395 have been installed to date and there is a probability the full number will never be put into use.

Officials of the meter companies estimated that the full 3,000 meters would net between $325,000 and $350,000 annually, or an average of about 371⁄2 cents per meter per business day for the entire city. The first 1,000, located in the very busiest downtown areas, did yield almost this much, averaging something less than $300 (or 30 cents each) a day. Subsequent installations in less central sections, however, showed a sharp drop in the daily return. Not so many people had occasion to park, for one thing, and for another a nickel bought more parking time than in the congested districts. It quickly became apparent that the original estimates were too high.

Kansas City had an ironclad contract, unique in the complete protection it afforded the city, whereby the city was to take title to the meters after 8 months, regardless of whether or not they had paid for themselves. During this period the company got 85 percent of all receipts, and nothing more. The city also reserved the right to cancel the meter permit after 4 months, and the company agreed to remove the meters within 2 weeks after being ordered to do so. some other cities, abandonment of the meters has been followed by controversy as to who should pay the cost of removal.

In

Most of the meters installed in Mobile, Ala., last July 20, were removed soon thereafter because of spirited opposition by merchants and citizens. Other cities where meters have been removed, or in which their operation has been

halted by court order or other local action, are: Birmingham, 662; Hutchinson, Kans., 165; Lubbock, Tex., 317; Paducah, Ky., 500; and Topeka, Kans., 375. A suit against the 550 meters in Huntington, W. Va., is pending.

3. The amount of revenue that has been derived from the meters in each of the cities and what disposition has been made of the revenue.

Unfortunately we are not in position to supply much information on this point other than that which is outlined above and below. However, from our file we have obtained the following information which may be of some assistance to you. The matter of revenue is bound to be one of the most important questions concerning parking meters. Several of the manufacturers of meters are using the revenue feature as a selling point, in spite of the fact that the trend of court decisions and legal opinions indicate that meters will probably be declared illegal if used primarily as new sources of revenue. It is, therefore, interesting to record the revenue experience of cities using parking meters.

In St. Petersburg, Fla., 150 meters were installed on January 6 of this year. At the close of the busy season on May 1, the use of 68 of the meters were discontinued. The revenue for the first 6 months of 1936 was as follows:

Fort Worth installed 618 meters on June 1, deriving $6,069.55 from them during June and $1,279.80 during the first week in July.

In Miami, where 400 meters were installed in February 1936, the gross revenue for the 5-month period February-June was:

The direct annual expenses to the police and finance departments have been estimated as follows:

(a) Police department:

Direct assignments to Park-O-Meters:
Patrolmen, 2, at $100 per month..
Repairman, 1, at $100 per month.

$2,400 1, 200

Painting, 12,000 linear feet 4 times per year, at $0.02% per
foot..

1, 200

Uniforms, 3, at $44.

132

Patrolman equipment, 5-year-life gun, cuffs, badge, $35.......

14

Maintenance and repair charges are not included because of lack of experience, but are not expected to be heavy.

In Dallas, where 1,000 meters were installed between November 4 and December 12, 1935, and an additional 500 between March 21 and April 1, the revenue received was as follows:

1, 560

416

100

2, 076

Meters in El Paso returned a gross revenue of $17,233.29 between January 2 and July 5, distributed as follows:

Perhaps least successful from the revenue standpoint is Hutchinson, Kans., where 162 meters brought in only $103.10 from June 22 to July 1, and $210 from July 1 to 11.

4. A summary of all the legal decisions and opinions that have been handed down regarding these parking devices.

Two State supreme courts have recently handed down opinions on parking meters. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma on March 9, 1937 (in re H. E. Duncan No. 27, 533 Sup. Ct. of Okla.), held the parking-meter ordinance of Oklahoma City valid. The court held that cities may exercise their power to regulate the use of streets by regulating parking, implying power to exact a fee sufficient to cover expenses of the proper exercise of that power.

The Supreme Court of Massachusetts on April 15, 1937, at the request of the State legislature in an advisory opinion held that the legislature could authorize the regulation of parking by means of meters but warned that "a municipality cannot be authorized to turn this plan of using parking meters into a business of profit over and above the expense involved in proper regulation."

The Florida Supreme Court on December 10, 1936, upheld the use of meters in Miami as a legitimate exercise of licensing and police powers. The court made it plain, however, that "if it had been shown * * * that the city is making inordinate and unjustified profit by means of these parking meters and was resorting to their use not for regulatory purposes but for revenue only, there might have been a different judgment."

The Alabama Supreme Court on January 14 outlawed parking meters that had been installed in Birmingham, referring to the parking-meter ordinance as "an unauthorized use of the taxing power."

Thus the whole weight of judicial opinion as it has been expressed to date is adverse to the use of meters for the primary purpose of raising revenue. This

is important because one of the principal sales arguments has been that they will not only aid in solving acute parking problems but also will pay substantial dividends in cash.

44136-38-15

The Florida and Alabama Supreme Court decisions are in direct conflict on the point of whether a municipal parking fee is a legitimate exercise of the police power. As a result there is the situation of a 5-cent parking-meter fee in Florida being legally not a tax but a regulatory charge, whereas a similar fee is an unauthorized tax in Alabama.

It would seem that in some jurisdictions clear-cut legal authority for metered parking must await further litigation, and perhaps additional State legislation. With very best wishes, I am

Cordially and sincerely yours,

GEO. E. KENEIPP, Manager.

Mr. KENEIPP. And I also have here a letter from the secretary of the El Paso Automobile Association giving their endorsement to the installation in El Paso. That is interesting in view of the fact that the local A. A. A. Club has not endorsed it.

Senator THOMAS. That may be put into the record. (The letter referred to is as follows:)

1

GEO. E. KENEIPP,

EL PASO AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, INC.
El Paso, Tex., April 24, 1936.

Manager, Keystone Automobile Club,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. KENEIPP: Your inquiry of the 15th instant received and this morning we phoned the chief of police and read him the second paragraph of your letter and beg to quote him as follows: "The park-o-meter has been well received in El Paso and will undoubtedly be kept."

In conclusion wish to add, however, that at first there was quite a bit of talk among motorists and the reaction was not the best in the world, but the merchants seemed to have liked them from the start.

Really the only way to do the installing in a satisfactory manner it seems to us would be to get meters on 6 months' trial and then you would be convinced that they were Ö. K. for your city. The reaction is pretty strong against them at first, especially among the "moochers."

Trusting that this is the information you wanted, we are,

Yours very truly,

BUENA GILDER, Secretary.

Mr. KENEIPP. I do not know whether you want these to go into the record or not. This is a clipping from the Newark Sun Dial, June 8, of last year, showing one of the meters, showing the way the street looks after the meters were installed; and here is another clipping showing how successful they have been in New Jersey.

Senator THOMAS. If you do not mind, I would like to have you leave that with the clerk of the committee so that when the matter comes before the committee, we may have it if we have occasion to inspect it.

Mr. KENEIPP. I have one other from Atlantic City; one of the newest installations.

Senator THOMAS. You may leave those with the clerk of the committee, so we will have them in case we have occasion to consider them.

Senator KING. Has your organization, in view of the studies of the traffic here and elsewhere, made any recommendation to the Commissioners for dealing with this very acute problem?

Mr. KENEIPP. Our recommendations, Senator, were conveyed to a committee of the House last year which entered into a very comprehensive study of traffic conditions. That is the Carpenter Committee. And, as a result of a great deal of work, we came to those decisions and we stand by them and would like to see those improvements recommended at that time consummated.